53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v. Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd.

82 ITR 804Supreme Court of India1971#11036 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v. Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3, , PUNE vs. ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,, PUNE

ITA 692/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 28Section 80

…p its right to purchase and / or to operate certain hotel & it was loss of source of income to the assessee, amount received by the assessee would be capital receipt. III. CIT vs State Trading Corporation (2001) 247 ITR 114 (Delhi) & CIT vs Prabhu Dayal(1971) 82 ITR 804 (SC) Whereby due to cancellation of contract, the trading structure of the assessee is impaired or such a cancellation results in loss of what may be regarded as the source of assesses’s income, the payment made to compensate for cancellation of agreement is capital receipt. Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue- IV. Termination of Agreement- Co…

ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

ITA 572/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 28Section 80

…p its right to purchase and / or to operate certain hotel & it was loss of source of income to the assessee, amount received by the assessee would be capital receipt. III. CIT vs State Trading Corporation (2001) 247 ITR 114 (Delhi) & CIT vs Prabhu Dayal(1971) 82 ITR 804 (SC) Whereby due to cancellation of contract, the trading structure of the assessee is impaired or such a cancellation results in loss of what may be regarded as the source of assesses’s income, the payment made to compensate for cancellation of agreement is capital receipt. Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue- IV. Termination of Agreement- Co…

BUNKIM FINANCE & INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 6166/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 208Section 73

…sed to be filed by assessee are relevant and necessary to be considered to decide the issue as to whether shares were held by assessee as investment or stock-in-trade. It is relevant to state that Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of CIT Vs Prabhu Dayal 82 ITR 804 that question as to whether receipt is a capital receipt of income, has to be judged from the facts of each case and question of law can be drawn such facts. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. H. Holck Larsen 160 ITR 67 also held that whether transaction of sale and purchase of share is a trading transaction or in the nature of investme…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. CHITTRANJAN DUA, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…e amount under the decree in view of the memorandum of settlement is also liable to be brought under tax. 9. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. D…

MR. CHITTRANJAN DUA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…e amount under the decree in view of the memorandum of settlement is also liable to be brought under tax. 9. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. D…

DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK PREMNARAYEN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 876/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Mahajani
Section 14ASection 14A(3)

…ation. He submitted, since the nature of payment received is compensation for financial loss suffered by the assessee, it is a capital receipt, hence, not taxable. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decision:– i) CIT v/s Prabhul Dayal, [1971] 82 ITR 804 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Rao Raja Kalyansingh, [1974] 97 ITR 690 (Raj.); iii) Shyam Telelink Ltd. v/s ITO, [2006] 99 ITD 576 (Del.); and iv) Inter Gold (I) P. Ltd. v/s JCIT, [2010] 37 SOT 45 (T–Mum.). 11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decision relied upon. The issue ari…

ALLCATEL USA SOURCING LP ( INCLUDED IN ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8601/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.8601 & 7533/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Alcatel Usa Sourcing The Addl. Director Of बनाम/ Lp (Included In Alcatel- Income-Tax (International Vs. Lucent Usa Inc.) Taxation)-1, C/O Pricewaterhouse Scindia House, Coopers, Mumbai Pwc House, 4Th Floor, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfa9998A आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7534 & 7535/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Alcatel Usa Sourcing The Addl. Director Of बनाम/ Inc (Included In Alcatel- Income-Tax (International Vs. Lucent Usa Inc.) Taxation)-1, C/O Pricewaterhouse Scindia House, Coopers, Mumbai Pwc House, 4Th Floor, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagca4535R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwalla अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Shri K.K. Ved ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jasbir Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234B

…54 million due to it is was revenue in nature and in the absence of any PE in India, the same was not liable to be taxed in India. 2.5.2 To support the above contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial precedents – • CIT v. Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804 (SC) In this case, the Apex Court has held that it is well-settled that a distinction has to be drawn between a payment made for past services or discharge of past liabilities, and that made for compensation of termination of income producing asset. The former does not lose its revenue nature, but the latter being a payment for destruction of a c…

DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. LML LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3666/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…ndia Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC 427 (HL) After referring to these decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion on the facts that…

THE ACIT RG-3(2) vs. M/S. LML LTD,

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…ndia Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC 427 (HL) After referring to these decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion on the facts that…

M/S. LML LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG.3(2),

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…ndia Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC 427 (HL) After referring to these decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion on the facts that…